Marriage Changes May Shake Churches' Tax Exemptions

Prominent conservatives are warning that the debate over civil marriage could soon move into the religious arena and change the way churches treat marriage.

Same-sex couples are already looking ahead to May when they can obtain civil marriage licenses in Massachusetts. And just in the last two weeks, officials in San Francisco have handed out marriage licenses to more than 3,000 homosexual couples - allegedly in violation of the California Constitution and a voter-approved referendum.

Religious marriage poses a different set of circumstances since churches and similar institutions are protected by the Constitution. But conservatives of various religious denominations told CNSNews.com that threats remain, including the possibility that churches could be stripped of their tax-exempt status.

Richard D. Land, president and chief executive of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said changes are probably in store for some denominations, whether they are adopted voluntarily or imposed by the government.

"If political correctness wins the struggle for hearts and minds," Land said, "then you may see tremendous pressure to take away the tax-exempt status of churches and denominations and organizations that refuse to fully affirm and accept the homosexual lifestyle."

Land pointed to the growing split within the Episcopalian, Methodist and Presbyterian churches over homosexual clergy and same-sex relationships. Other faiths, including the Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists, aren't likely to change their ways anytime soon, he said.

Still, there are growing fears in Catholic circles, said Raymond L. Flynn, a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican who also served as a Democratic mayor of Boston. He said there is a "very distinct possibility" that homosexuals will set their sights on redefining religious marriage.

"The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step," said Flynn, who heads Your Catholic Voice, an activist group. "I don't think people will stop until the whole sacred institution of marriage crumbles."

Any threat to religious marriage between a man and a woman remains hypothetical today. But even homosexuals have acknowledged that the developments in Massachusetts and San Francisco arose quicker than they anticipated.

The Metropolitan Community Churches - boasting 40,000 members and 300 churches worldwide - are best known for embracing same-sex relationships. Their leader, the Rev. Troy D. Perry, has said, "Anything less than full marriage equality is settling for second-class status."

Other groups like Soulforce, which campaigns against "spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies," are working inside denominations to promote change. Its spokeswoman, Laura Montgomery Rutt, said parishioners are increasingly talking about same-sex relationships.

"I believe churches are allowed to discriminate and be as bigoted as they want to be," she said. "However, our mission is to make homophobia as unacceptable in the churches today as racism is. And when you look at the history of the churches around segregation and slavery, you'll see they were wrong then too."

But just because churches might discriminate doesn't mean the government should get involved, Montgomery Rutt said. She noted that the Catholic Church often refuses to marry divorcees, while conservative Jewish denominations frown upon mixed-religion marriages.

"Religion has thrived in America because we have freedom of religion," she said. "The government should never be allowed to interfere in the church unless they have some compelling state interest."

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund has led the way in litigating cases for homosexuals, but Michael Adams, director of education and public affairs, said the organization has no interest in bringing a lawsuit against a religious institution.

"Every church and religious denomination gets to decide for itself what rules it wishes to pursue, so I think it's fair to say there's zero chance of any legal action like that," Adams said. "And if there was legal action, it would clearly be unsuccessful."

Adams said he wasn't aware of any homosexual advocacy group contemplating such a challenge. Changes would have to come internally, he said, from a church's parishioners.

Although no legal challenges appear imminent, conservatives noted how rapidly things have changed already. Allan C. Carlson, the Family Research Council's distinguished fellow for family policy studies, said he fears churches could face threats to their tax-exempt status.

"I think there's vulnerability there," said Carlson, who is also president of the pro-family Howard Center in Illinois. "If same-sex marriage was deemed a fundamental human right, would churches still be allowed to ban such things and also claim a tax exemption? I don't know."

The best-known case of the Internal Revenue Service revoking a non-profit's tax exemption came in 1970 when Bob Jones University lost that status because it wouldn't admit black students. The Supreme Court in 1983 refused to restore the university's tax-exempt status, citing the fact that Bob Jones maintained a ban on interracial dating. The university has since changed its policies and is now exempt.

Similar calls have been directed at the Boy Scouts for its exclusion of homosexuals. But nothing has come to fruition since the Supreme Court backed the Boy Scouts' freedom of association rights in 2000. Instead, several troops have been excluded from charitable programs or subjected to hostility.

Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, predicted that homosexuals would try to chip away at the tax-exempt status of churches that reject same-sex relationships.

"The ultimate goal is to abolish marriage and to create a social order in which only the whims of individuals are fully protected," Knight said. "In order to do this, the church will have to be silenced."

Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment said its addition to the U.S. Constitution was the best way to counter any threats that might arise. Otherwise, said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, churches and other non-profits could find themselves running afoul of a judge's order.

"The institution of marriage," Daniels said, "is so foundational to many areas of policy and law that it is inevitable that the destruction of the legal status of marriage by the courts will inevitably have legal consequences for all sorts of organizations that continue to adhere to the concept of marriage as a union of a male and a female."

As the former dean of Catholic University Law School and now a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, Douglas W. Kmiec said institutions have faced challenges in the past by adhering to their religious doctrine on matters like sexual orientation.

But Kmiec said he hoped it would be a long time before a court infringed on the religious freedom of churches. Still, he pointed to the troubles facing groups like the Boy Scouts.

"Multiple entities have withdrawn preferred campgrounds, they have refused to allow Scouts to use public facilities and they have refused to allow the Scouts to participate in charitable drives," he said. "All of those things are deeply unconstitutional and wrongful in the sense that they disregard the Scouts' freedom of association that the Supreme Court vindicated.

"They would be especially wrongful if they were duplicated with regard to a church that refused to conduct a same-sex marriage," he added. "Because not only then would the freedom of association be at issue, but the free exercise of religion would be at issue."

While supporters of traditional marriage fear erosion at the religious level, Eugene Volokh, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said those fears might be exaggerated.

He said churches could raise a "significant constitutional defense" to keeping their tax-exempt status. He noted, for instance, the Catholic Church has faced criticism for years because it doesn't ordain women as priests.

"Churches, quite clearly, have the right to marry or not marry whoever they please," Volokh said. "Maybe somebody could sue them for discrimination in marriage, but the churches will certainly win."

Way back in the 1960s, Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae that separating fertility from sexuality would result in legitimation of all sorts of wrongful uses of sex and sexuality.

A prophet - no; prophetic - yes!

"Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy."
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

"Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general."
HUMANAE VITAE

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

Sexual Hypocrisy
by Chris Beneteau

Recently, my wife was speaking to a married friend of ours about natural family planning. As the conversation progressed, the topic of abstinence was discussed. At this point, the friend said something to my wife that was quite eye opening. It went something like this:

"Well you know, there are other ways in which a husband and wife can experience sexual pleasure without having intercourse."
The acquaintance then went on to vaguely describe some of these ‘alternative’ behaviours. My readers can use their imaginations as to the nature of these alternatives. As my wife relayed this story to me, I have to admit that I was quite surprised, because I had assumed that an NFP couple would fully understand the church’s teaching around sex within marriage. Apparently I was very wrong. Most married Catholics who are faithful to the Church’s teaching on sexuality are aware that the periods of abstinence can be very difficult. We realize, however, that God’s grace is sufficient to get us through these times and that developing self-control will only make our marriages happier in the long run. This was the first time, however, that I had ever encountered an NFP couple who were practicing illicit sexual behaviours within the context of the natural spacing of children.

For obvious reasons, this incident made me think about the sexuality immorality of our culture and the role that Catholics must play to promote and develop a culture of life; one that fosters a respect for the dignity and sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. It made me think that the culture will never change as long as Catholics continue to practice behaviours (willfully or out of ignorance) that the Church has always maintained are intrinsically evil. For example, let’s look at the issue of homosexuality or even homosexual marriage. Even the most bare bones apologist like myself can rhyme off a few scripture references condemning homosexual sex acts (Cf. Romans 1:24, 1 Cor. 6:9). I could even demonstrate how homosexuality violates the natural law. The question that springs to mind, however, is this: would it do any good? In a few cases, the answer would surely be yes, but in most cases however, the answer is obviously no.

Why is this the case? Well, the answer is really quite simple. Why should a homosexual want to change their behaviour? After all, most of our society including Catholics, engage in sexual behaviours that, in all honesty, are not much better than the prototypical homosexual sex acts. For example, suppose two homosexual men engage in an act of sodomy while a married Catholic couple, use a barrier method of contraception during sex. Is their behaviour really that much different? Both couples are closed to life and are committing acts that violate Gods law. Aren’t they both just engaging in acts of mutual masturbation? My point is that homosexuality will continue to be encouraged, promoted and eventually elevated to a position equal to heterosexual marriage if Catholics do not practice what the Church actually teaches.

How do we change the culture that has elevated homosexuality to an almost exalted position in our society? For starters, we have to ensure that young Catholic couples clearly understand what the Church actually teaches. To be brutally blunt about it, it is absolutely essential that young married Catholic couples understand that semen must only be deposited in the vagina. Anywhere else is a violation of Catholic teaching. Contrary to what my acquaintance believes, there are not other ways of sexually stimulating one another during the fertile times of a woman’s cycle. Stimulation in the form of foreplay is perfectly acceptable as long as its completion is an act of vaginal intercourse that is open to life. This means that all other sex acts outside of this one are strictly prohibited.

It is imperative that faithful Catholics gently correct our wayward brethren, who may, through no fault of their own, be doing things that are ‘homosexual’ or non-life giving in nature. Faithful Catholics must model the joy of family life and, if possible, be generous in the size of their family. We should also not forget to emphasize the importance of being chaste even in marriage. Encouraging Catholic men to have ‘custody of their eyes’ is a good place to start.

With all of this in mind, how then should a Catholic apologist approach the issue of homosexuality? Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against citing scripture, tradition and the natural law, I just don’t believe that this will carry much weight with your mainstream homosexual. Besides, most homosexuals can access materials that put a more ‘gay friendly’ spin on homosexuality. While most of the readers of this site, will have undoubtedly read that some so-called Christian scholars actually teach that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being inhospitable. When faced with this sort of biblical revisionism, what is an apologist to do?

Ultimately, I believe that we can serve homosexual persons much better if we put the spotlight squarely on ourselves. What exactly do I mean by this? When confronted by one of our homosexual brothers or sisters, we have to make it very clear that we do not, for example, tolerate sodomy whether it is committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. This is but one example, but you can clearly see where I am going with this. Other illicit behaviours such as masturbation and fellacio (oral sodomy) may also get some attention and thus it is imperative that homosexuals understand that there is not one set of rules for them and another set of rules for the rest of us. Sexual hypocrisy is clearly a problem for the church right now and until it is addressed, our society will fall further and further into the abyss of sexual depravity.

Canada’s famous "sex educator", Sue Johansson, has said that sodomy is the new taboo that is being broken by the heterosexual community. If this is true then you can be sure that our battles to defend traditional marriage in the media, the legislatures, and the courts will become more and more difficult.

Chris Beneteau
The Catholic Legate
April 20, 2003

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.